United States v. Ray Anthony James

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Ray Anthony James

612 F. App'x 868

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedAugust 26, 2015

Docket15-1652

StatusUnpublished

This text of 612 F. App'x 868 (United States v. Ray Anthony James) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Ray Anthony James, 612 F. App'x 868 (8th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ray James, who entered into a written plea agreement and pleaded guilty to an immigration offense, appeals from the sentence imposed by the District Court. 1 His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that James’s sentence is unreasonable. James has moved for appointment of new counsel and has filed a pro se brief asserting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

We decline to consider James’s ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Woods, 717 F.3d 654, 657 (8th Cir.2013) (“Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel ... are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings.” (citation to quoted case omitted)). As to all other issues raised, we enforce the appeal waiver in James’s written plea agreement. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.), (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 997, 124 S.Ct. 501, 157 L.Ed.2d 398 (2003). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we dismiss this appeal. We also deny James’s motion for appointment of new counsel.

1

. The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United . States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Ray James, who entered into a written plea agreement and pleaded guilty to an immigration offense, appeals from the sentence imposed by the District Court. 1 His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that James’s sentence is unreasonable. James has moved for appointment of new counsel and has filed a pro se brief asserting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

We decline to consider James’s ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Woods, 717 F.3d 654, 657 (8th Cir.2013) (“Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel ... are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings.” (citation to quoted case omitted)). As to all other issues raised, we enforce the appeal waiver in James’s written plea agreement. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.), (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 997, 124 S.Ct. 501, 157 L.Ed.2d 398 (2003). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we dismiss this appeal. We also deny James’s motion for appointment of new counsel.

1

. The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United . States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

612 F. App'x 868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ray-anthony-james-ca8-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack